Skip to main content

Senator Clinton Releases Energy Policy Plan

In a speech yesterday in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Senator Hillary Clinton laid out her energy policy for her presidential campaign. Here's the passage on nuclear energy (PDF):
Addressing Nuclear Power: Hillary believes that energy efficiency and renewables are better options for addressing global warming and meeting our future power needs, because of significant unresolved concerns about the cost of producing nuclear power, the safety of operating plants, waste disposal, and nuclear proliferation. Hillary opposes new subsidies for nuclear power, but believes that we need to take additional steps to deal with the problems facing nuclear power. She would strengthen the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and direct it to improve safety and security at nuclear power plants; terminate work at the flawed Yucca Mountain site and convene a panel of scientific experts to explore alternatives for disposing of nuclear waste; and continue research, with a focus on lower costs and improving safety.
For other Clinton items from our archives, click here.

UPDATE: Some reactions here and here.

ANOTHER UPDATE: More here.

Comments

bryfry said…
Ah ... so she would take us back in time to ... well ... the 90's.

It's interesting to see that her plan for nuclear energy so closely resembles her husband's: that is, it's a plan to do nothing. At least the Clintons are a consistent pair.

So much for being "agnostic."
Anonymous said…
A vote FOR a Democrat is a vote AGAINST nuclear power.

If Clinton gets in office, then there will be NO new nukes, and it's unlikely that IPEC or VY will conitune to operate.

I've told you this before: don't ingratiate yourselves before these people. Simply defeat them in 2008.
Sovietologist said…
I've written a post on my blog with my admittedly contrarian analysis of Sen. Clinton's position on nuclear power. Long story short, I think she's far more reasonable than she appears.
Anonymous said…
In other words, making vague promises to nuclear supporters while appeasing the anti nuclear fring by throttling any real progress. If others don't I still remember what another Clinton did in the 90's concerning nuclear developement.
d kosloff said…
Somebody should tell Hillary's advisors about the Swedish experience with their "30-year phase out" of nuclear power.
robert merkel said…
Anonymous:

With respect, you're being unrealistic. A strategy for the nuclear industry that relies on keeping Democrats out of office forever won't work any better any more than a plan to introduce (to pick an example of an issue that the American left would dearly love to see happen) single-payer healthcare that relies on keeping Republicans out of office forever.

From what I can tell, at this point in time Senator Clinton is more likely than any other person to be the next President of the United States. Furthermore, there's not much you, or anyone that reads this blog can do about it; the number of people motivated to vote, donate, or or mobilise on nuclear energy, is tiny.

As Sovietologist points out, Hillary's left herself all manner of wiggle room on nuclear power. That's a world away from, say, John Edwards. And it's simply not true that left-of-center governments won't ever support nuclear; Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have fought their party's base tooth and nail to get new nuclear power on the agenda in Britain.

Anyway there's a choice; work with Democrats as best you can (who aren't monolithic on the issue), or don't work with them and get frozen out of the debate entirely.
Anonymous said…
Told ya. Hillary! is anti-nuke at heart. Any intimations to the contrary are just pandering.

What did the Clintons do for (to?) nuclear power in the '90s? How about canceling the IFR at Idaho? Their bag-man Bill Richardson killed the HFBR at Brookhaven Lab. Clinton's first speech to Congress noted that the government wasn't going to be doing some things anymore, "like nuclear power development". Yep, they sure did a lot.
Anonymous said…
Robert Merkel,

I respect your opinion, but I'll never vote Democrat anyways, nor will I ingratiate myself with liberals. It is also unlikely I'll vote Republican in the upcoming election, especially if Rudy wins the Republican primaries. There are moral issues that trump nuclear power, although I still won't vote for any candidate who is anti-nuke. I probably will vote Constitution Party - they are closest to how I feel politically. Sadly, their candidate won't get elected, but it's my vote and it won't go to either Rudy or Hillary, even though Rudy is pro-nuclear. As I said, there other other issues (moral in nature) that require this course of action.
Ian said…
Anonymous, if it's what you believe, sign it with your name.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …